“Adamantly opposed:” Marshall County’s letter against the hog farm

The Marshall County Board recently voted to send the Illinois Department of Agriculture a seven-page letter stating that the panel is “adamantly opposed to the construction and operation of the proposed Sandy Creek Lane LLC Hog Farm” northwest of Wenona.

The letter, which constitutes a county’s main role in trying to influence whether such a facility receives siting approval from the state, was not available in its final form immediately after the May 22 meeting, because the board authorized member and primary author Mike Durham to make some format changes and also insert references to supporting documents that would be sent as attachments.

That process was completed, the letter was signed and mailed the next day, and County Clerk Melody Weber provided a copy: marshallagletter

The letter speaks for itself, but one explanatory note might be useful. The four sections marked by Roman numerals, beginning with “I. Whether traffic patterns minimize the effect on existing traffic laws,” refer to specific criteria that the Ag Dept. is supposed to use in determining whether a proposed facility meets the siting requirements of the state’s Livestock Management Facilities Act.

So the board is arguing that the plan put forward by Iowa-based VMC Management Corp. fails to meet at least half of those. Discussion at an earlier meeting suggested that most members believed it fell short on at least five, and one – attorney Don Knuckey Jr. of Henry – thought it failed on all eight.

But the board limited the formal objections to four, with most emphasis placed on the costs of repairing and maintaining rural roads around the site. With about half the letter devoted to that, it was clearly the issue on which the most evidence could be assembled.

On some important issues, it would be basically impossible to determine whether the proposal meets state criteria, because the developers haven’t provided enough information on what they plan to do. For instance, they don’t have to provide a waste-management plan for the 10 million gallons of manure expected to be produced each year until after a state permit has been received.

Among the supporting attachments, the first is a letter from county engineer and zoning administrator Patrick Sloan detailing what it would cost to upgrade just .7 mile of Evans Township Rd. 2800E to an all-weather road capable of carrying 80,000 pound trucks that would be going to and from the proposed facility every day.

“The estimated cost of these improvements is $330,000,” Sloan says.

The second exhibit is a letter from Township Road Commissioner John Lauf, who puts into perspective what expenses like that would mean to a township with 1,322 residents, 52 miles of roads to maintain, $51,000 in annual property tax revenue, and $59,000 in Motor Fuel Tax funds.

“I have grave concerns regarding the significant negative financial impact this facility will have on Evans Township,” Lauf says.

The third exhibit, a letter from Dr. Richard June as president of the Marshall County Board of Health, points out that concentrated animal feeding operations can contaminate ground and surface water and also can affect air quality in the surrounding area. If the facility is approved, it should implement “best management practices” to protect neighboring residents and nearby Sandy Creek, the agency recommends.

“These types of livestock operations can cause a myriad of environmental and public health problems when the operator fails to adhere to good management practices,” June writes.

The fourth exhibit is an affidavit from Stephen Goulding, chairman of Oak State Products Inc. in Wenona, the county’s largest employer with some 300 full-time and 50 part-time workers. Having toured a much smaller VMC-managed facility in Iowa and found offensive odors even on a mild spring day, Goulding says the proposed 20,000 hog facility would prevent him and his wife, Peggy, from continuing to host valuable business gatherings at their nearby home.

“These events are important to the bakery’s economic development as the events develop new and enhance existing business relationships,” Goulding explains.

The exhibits (marshallattachments) conclude with a letter from Board Chairman Gary Kroeschen referring to the inclusion of petitions signed by 547 county residents opposed to the hog farm. The pages bearing those signatures are not included here in this file, but they are on file in the county clerk’s office.

The state process calls for the Ag Dept. to reply to the county within 15 calendar days after the public comment period ends on May 30. But it also allows for the state to request more information from the developers at that point, and the relatively sparse information that has been provided so far suggests that might be likely to happen.

What are the chances of the facility getting state approval in spite of the opposition of county government and many residents? Statistically, very good, though the percentages vary a little with who you ask and where you look.

At a more than six-hour public meeting on the project in a Wenona school gym on April 17, Ag Dept. official Warren Goetsch bristled when noting the frequent comment that the agency “has never denied a permit” in the 15 years the current law has been in place.

That statement is actually true, Goetsch acknowledged, but he insisted it’s misleading.

About 74 percent of the applications have been approved since the law came into effect, Goetsch said. The others were either withdrawn or else just never completed after requests for further information were made, so they “just died,” added Goetsch, who is bureau chief of environmental programs at the department.

Those statistics show there had been 1,191 applications for – or “notices of intent to construct,” in Ag jargon – swine facilities through Nov. 2013. Those represented about 68 percent of all livestock facilities proposed, with dairy operations a distant second at 325.

Of those 1,191, 894 had already been constructed by then. That number alone constitutes 75 percent.

However, 43 more had been approved and were under construction at that point, while another 10 had met requirements but had not yet started construction. Presumably at least some of those 53 have been completed and started operating since the statistics were last updated.

But even if not, adding those 53 appears to bring the number of approved facilities to 947. That’s actually 79.5 percent of the total.

And when you look at the remainder, 21 were still under review (and might be approved by now), while the developers of the others had either withdrawn their plans or allowed the time limit for construction to expire. The department’s definition of “inactive” includes denied applications, but Goetsch’s remarks indicate that’s been a moot point.

So in other words, when projects haven’t gone forward, it’s been the developers who were making that decision. Whether or not they might regroup for a different plan later, that pattern shows who holds the cards in this deal.

It also suggests that the only realistic way of preventing such a project might be to convince the developers that it’s ultimately not worth pursuing. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out along the banks of Sandy Creek.

Gary L. Smith can be reached at (800) 516-0389 or glsmith@mtco.com. Follow him on
Twitter @Glsmithx.

Author: Gary L. Smith

Gary L. Smith is a free-lance writer who has contributed regularly to the Journal Star since 1993. He reports primarily on events in Marshall, Putnam, and Stark Counties, and the name of this blog is derived from the way that judges in the Peoria-based 10th Judicial District refer to that area.
View all posts by Gary L. Smith

So despite the public input, the county hearings and the Health Department recommendation it can still be approved ignoring all this.
How is it that this Agency can have so much autonomy to ignore the wishes of the locals?
Or perhaps I should say that any mega _____________ (fill in the blank) that decides to move into an area can stomp all over the locals and do what they wish.
Is it time to start lobbying for legislative changes in authority? Is that even possible?
Thanks for a good update on this.
Still learning….

I heard about this from a friend. I have a neutral opinion on this right now, but after reading that letter I’m wondering how much more inaccurate info is being put out? The economic impact section of the letter says it will have a negative affect on the area but mentions nothing of the jobs which would be created. I guess they don’t count towards paying taxes?

I asked if they would give American citizens, they just said they are an equal opportunity employer, so….no. CAFOs by design eliminate jobs, that’s why they are built in the first place. They have destroyed hundreds of communities and by the pork lobby’s own numbers create less than three jobs per facility. I am moving because of it and taking my business with me and in this article Marshall counties largest employers said it will interfere with his business which is close to 400 AMERICANS. You want to trade all that for out of state hog factory management of a hand full of illegals? Seems idiotic to me.